If someone was going to hand me $500m and free land to build a ballpark, I'd probably take it too.

I think it would be interesting to see that map of ticket buyers for the sox and cubs.

In the late 1980s when JR and EE where planning to move the Sox to Addison, they said that a big chunk of Sox season ticket holders lived in DuPage County. That was one of their justifications for moving to Addison. Even if that was true, the Addison move was a lousy idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by doublem23

Yeah, I agree, frankly, I think there might only be a few parks replaced before the Cell. Crazy as it is, it's the 9th oldest park in MLB now, Fenway and Wrigley aren't going anywhere. Neither is Kauffman. I doubt Dodger Stadium is, either, but this new ownership group is a real wild card.

So that leaves Angel Stadium, the Oakland Coliseum, Tropicana, and Skydome as the last 4 older parks. All of those seem likely to be replaced in the next 15 years, but after that, it has to be the Cell next in line, I'd think.

It will also be interesting to see what style ballpark the Braves end up building; wonder if they'll replicate their division rivals in Miami and build another contemporary park or if they'll go back to Retro Modern/Classic that has dominated MLB since Camden Yard opened.

I doubt the Angels will be leaving Angels Stadium any time soon. They are quite successful there. It doesn't have the charm of the new retro parks, but it's a pretty good baseball-only stadium that went through a major renovation in the late 90s. The other 3 stadiums you mentioned, are definitely obsolete, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huisj

The first of the new stadiums to be replaced. Does this set the new standard for how quickly a stadium becomes obsolete? Kind of crazy.

I doubt it. The other new parks are still quite popular, aren't "outdated", and most state/local governments (except for Cobb Co. apparently) aren't going to be throwing $500M and up around on a team with a perfectly good ballpark and pretty much no leverage to move (where would a team go?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses_Scurry

Just looking over some of the previous ball-parks for teams that are now in "new" parks, it looks like 30-40 years of use is pretty normal.

While most of these were multi-purpose stadiums that were the cool new things when they were built and hated by the '90's, there is no reason to think that the shelf life of the newer stadiums isn't limited either, especially with how technology moves so much faster today.

Comparing the 60s/70s era ballparks to the post 1991 MLB ballparks is comparing apples and oranges IMO. Today's parks with their popular designs and popular downtown locations are nowhere near as outdated the multipurpose eyesores of the past. Plus, I think the era of state/local governments spending big bucks on insanely expensive ballparks is, with a few exceptions, over.